Legalectric

Once more with feeling, the Public and Evidentiary hearings for the Rochester natural gas pipeline are coming up early next month (PUC Notice):

Here’s the testimony from MERC and the Commerce “Comments” so far:

Direct_Rick J Moser_201610-125945-04

Direct_Lindsay K Kyle_201610-125945-03

Direct_Amber S Lee_201610-125945-02

Comments were received on the “CEA” and remember, the Comparative Environmental Assessment” is an environmental review document ruled insufficient (Sandpiper Appellate Decision-CEA) for the Sandpiper pipeline:

MERC_comments_201610-125498-01

DOC_EERA_Public Comments Received_201610-125737-01

And general public comments and scoping comments received earlier:

DOT_Comments_20164-120024-01

DNR_1of4_20164-120059-01

DNR_2of4_20164-120059-02

DNR_3of4_20164-120059-03

DNR_4of4_20164-120059-04

Rochester Olmsted Planning Department Comments

Laursen_Comments_20166-122017-01

Hanson_20164-120598-01

Ryan_20164-120680-01

Anderson_20164-120670-01

Meyer Farms_20164-120638-01-1

Kottschade_WSB_20164-120641-01

Westridge Hills_20164-120640-01-1

NNG_Eller_20164-120644-01

Jacobson_20164-120688-01

Dee_20164-120687-01

Darnell & Dee_20164-120689-01

 

 

According to their Petition for Withdrawal, “[p]ursuant to Minn. R. 7829.0430, persons opposing the Petition have 14 calendar days from the date of service to file objections.   Pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6600, parties may respond to the motion to suspend the contested case and certify the issues within 10 working days of this motion by filing a written response with the judge and serving copies on all parties.”  And they’re correct about that.

Served September 1, so deadlines are September 11 (12th because it’s a Sunday) for objections under Minn. R. 1400.6600 (for “parties”) and September 15 for objections/comments under Minn. R. 7829.0430.

Address comments to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary                                                    Minnesota Public Utilities Commission                                                           121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350                                                                    Saint Paul, MN  55101-2147

Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

AND to eFile them by registering at the PUC site HERE and eFiling them in dockets 13-473 and 13-474.  It EASY!!!  Then not only will the Commission and the Judges of the two dockets be aware of your comments, but the world can see them too!  Small effort, larger impact!

And you can mail the Comment to him, but I’d strongly advise you eFile it at the PUC (which will also go to ALJ Oxley)

And again, here’s their Withdrawal Request:

20169-124579-01_Petition Withdrawal

The 10 day rule, Minn. R. 1400.6600 does say “parties” may respond:

The 14 day rule is broader, Minn. R. 7829.0430 in the Utility Practice and Procedure rules:

Minn. R. 7829.0430

Subpart 1. Uncontested withdrawal.

The commission delegates to the executive secretary authority to approve the withdrawal of a filing. Approval will be granted by the executive secretary if the following conditions are met:

A. the party that submitted the filing has requested that the filing be withdrawn and has served notice on the persons listed on the official service list;

B. no person has expressed opposition to withdrawal of the filing within 14 days of service of the notice; and

C. no commissioner or commission staff person has identified a reason that the matter should not be withdrawn.

Subp. 2. Contested withdrawal.

If any person opposes a withdrawal request within 14 days of service of the notice, the commission will allow a filing to be withdrawn at the request of the filing party if the commission determines that the proposed withdrawal:

A.does not contravene the public interest;

B. does not prejudice any party; and

C. does not concern a filing that raises issues requiring commission action.

If the commission determines that withdrawal would contravene the public interest or would prejudice a party, the commission may permit withdrawal only subject to conditions that mitigate the harm identified.

And here’s a prior Legalectric post:

The Department of Commerce has hit the brakes on Sandpiper Pipeline and Line 3 Replacement Projects “until such time as Enbridge makes clear its intentions about the projects, or until we receive further direction from the Commission.”

Here’s the letter from Bill Grant:

20168-124424-01_Commerce_EIS Scope Decision Document on HOLD

And the guts of it:

YES!!!  Now, about those transmission lines proposed for pumping stations related to these projects????

Word is out, confirming scuttlebutt, that Enbridge will pull the plug on the Sandpiper pipeline.  It’s not official yet, nothing has happened beyond an announcement, but if Enbridge is saying it, IN WRITING, then that means it’s highly likely, eh?

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge Inc. Announce Agreement to Acquire Equity Interest in the Bakken Pipeline System Establishing New Path to the U.S. Gulf Coast

Here’s the important part:

Upon successful closing of the transaction, EEP and Marathon Petroleum plan to terminate their transportation services and joint venture agreements for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project. EEP continues to believe the Bakken region is a highly productive and attractive basin, which has significant crude oil supply growth potential that will require additional pipeline capacity in the future. The scope and timing of the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will be evaluated during the quarter to ensure that it is positioned to meet the growing need for pipeline capacity while offering customers competitive tolls and strong netbacks. Additionally, in conjunction with a termination of the Sandpiper joint venture agreements with Marathon Petroleum, EEP will retain 100 percent ownership in our legacy North Dakota system, which is one of the most competitive outlets available to producers in the State.

(what’s a “netback?”).

Reuters has it right with the “OVERBUILD” characterization:

Enbridge’s Sandpiper looks to be latest victim of pipeline overbuild

For this to be “official,” Enbridge will need to file a request to withdraw their application with the Public Utilities Commission, there will be a comment period, then the Commission will decide whether to approve the request to withdraw.

Suffice it to say, this will/would also mean that the transmission for the Sandpiper tank farm NW of Clearbrook is not necessary because the tank farm will not be built there (or in an alternate site)!  And that’s good news for my clients next to that tank farm.

As happened with Hollydale, because the Sandpiper part is before OAH, Enbridge has to request a Withdrawal, which will be certified to the Commission for its blessing.  Here’s the Hollydale request:

Xcel/GRE Hollydale Withdrawal Petition

And for Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission for Sandpiper’s Clearbrook tank farm, it’s time for Minnkota to withdraw their application!

So I fired off this missive to the PUC:

PUC Correspondence_Enbridge Press Release

Iit’s time to make sure the PUC knows of this Enbridge plan and the impact of this pullout on the need for transmission support!

An old Enbridge map of proposed Sandpiper route

The Minnesota Department of Commerce has released Notice of Scoping Meetings for the Sandpiper pipeline:

Here’s the full Notice:

Scoping & Meeting Notice_20164-119967-01

There’s also a lot of new information posted to go along with this, routes and alternatives and modifications are posted.

To look at the entire docket, go to the PUC’s Seach eDockets page, and search for dockets 13-473 (Certificate of Need) or 13-474 (Routing Docket).

Check out this weeks filings regarding environmental review filed by Commerce: